Discovering Russian Literature discussion

Let's start discussing the book here.
SPOILERS ALERT: Elements of the plot might be dicussed.

I started reading it last night. For the moment I've read the Prologue and the first 5 Chapters. I still don't know how the book will make me feel. Considering it a work of art, I'm amazed with the style and Nabokov's talent to play with words, even more considering English wasn't his first language!
I'd like to comment that even though I haven't read chritical analysis, I believe the first episodes of book and the character of Annabel, is a reference to Edgar Allan Poe's poem "Annabel Lee". I think it's a really beautiful poem, I quote here the synopsys of the poem for wikipedia:

"The poem's narrator describes his love for Annabel Lee, which began many years ago in an unnamed "kingdom by the sea". Though they were young, their love for one another burned with such an intensity that angels became jealous. For that reason, the narrator believes, the angels caused her death. Even so, their love is strong enough that it extends beyond the grave and the narrator believes their two souls are still entwined. Every night, he dreams of Annabel Lee and sees the brightness of her eyes in the stars. He admits that every night he lies down by her side in her tomb by the sea"

To read the poem online, link here: http://www.online-literature.com/poe/...

I also like the names of characters, Humbert Humbert, Vanessa van Ness.. I know names are supposed to be ficticious to hide real people identities, but do you think there is any meaning on them?
Too early for me to judge on story, but I think Humbert is horrible.. the way he excuses himself meantime describes his passion for nymphets.. creepy, I think

I have been reading it not too long yet, but I find it hard to put down. Humbert's language is almost loving, passionate, endearing, at points; but it is interspersed with vile reminders of what is actually going on, though Humbert has no problem telling us what that is.

Logan wrote: "I have been reading it not too long yet, but I find it hard to put down. Humbert's language is almost loving, passionate, endearing, at points; but it is interspersed with vile reminders of what is..."

Logan, I think Humbert's language is so beautiful.. in my opinion it's what makes the book so powerful and shocking, it's easy to get blown away by it and losing track of what is really crossing Humbert's mind. It reminds me a little bit (or at least for my personal reaction as reader) to The Collector the book is so well written it's hard to put down, but both narrators (Humbert and Frederick Clegg in The Collector) are so insane it's a truly disturbing experience.

I admit I haven't been reading much Lolita these last days because I'm using most of my free time for reading War and Peace and another book I'm really enjoying, but it's because it's my third reading of Lolita. First time I read it when I was 17 years old and then again in college, right now I'm more interested in how the (hopefully) more mature 31-years-old me reacts to the story.

deleted user wrote: "Logan wrote: "I have been reading it not too long yet, but I find it hard to put down. Humbert's language is almost loving, passionate, endearing, at points; but it is interspersed with vile remind..."

Yes, that is generally my opinion so far of this novel. As for my eventual reaction to it, I am anticipating this greatly, as I am not a fan of neither Modernist nor Postmodernist literary theory. Once I have finished, the real point of the novel will have to be examined to see whether I think it any good. For the moment, I am enjoying it.

Logan wrote: "Yes, that is generally my opinion so far of this novel...."

Hi Logan, I'm glad you're enjoying your reading. The moderators had to step down, though they are my friends I still didn't know why they left suddenly but they sure must have a good reason. I'll be moderating for now but I will not be joining this discussion. I leave the thread so you and other readers can respond.

Well, that is considerably unfortunate, as I am the only non-moderator who has commented here.

Logan wrote: "Well, that is considerably unfortunate, as I am the only non-moderator who has commented here."

Yes I know, I'm sorry Logan but I landed on moderating so suddenly and I'm getting ready for my finals and doing a lot of studies these days. Hopefully in future I'll be able to be more active in group reads and I might join in for this one after 1st of May.

Have not read Lolita yet, noticed that your group is reading War and Peace and Lolita. What a huge undertaking.

Yes, I'll not be doing two reading starting from May. These were plans of the previous moderator and I can't alter them because the members are already reading both novels.

I'll get to both of them when I get finished with North and South. And catch up later with the group. Sorry.

While I do understand how terribly hard it is to sympathize with any of the characters in this novel, I was wondering what everyone thought of Charlotte Haze. After her confession to H.H., I became somewhat fond of her and found her tragedy heartbreaking, all in a twisted, surreal sort of way of course.

So far, I can't decide my opinion of this book. The first paragraph blew me away (of course), and everything after that triggers this odd mixture of repulsion and admiration that I cannot understand. Maybe this feeling is the genius of Nabokov at work. I have read Pale Fire, but Lolita is on a different level thus far...

Charlotte Haze...hmmm.... It's difficult to get an accurate read of anyone in the story, because you can never quite trust Humbert, of course. You also have to wade through his repulsion of her non-nymphetness, which is what he focuses on when he's with her. He also has this way of making people seem ridiculous. He painted her as an overaged typical suburban woman.

I think the one thing that sort of jarred me about her was how quickly and readily she complained about Lo. It was almost like they were unconsciously competing for him. Of course, this is all taken from his point of view.

Chartlotte is an interesting case for the same reason most of the characters which Humbert observes are. Our understanding of her comes from a distorted view of Humbert's combined with our own, more objective view gleaned from passive events Humbert has recorded. She seems to be a fairly normal single mother, in fact, whatever Humbert says of her. She obviously has a tender side, which makes her more human to us, though it simply gives Humbert a way of manipulating things for his benefit. She does, however, as we can see, somewhat overreact to her daughter's behaviour. Lolita behaves like any young adult would, and Charlotte's response is to try to have her committed to a boarding-school. She is also not the most pleasant or kind human being.

I, Ian, have not read Pale Fire, which is obviously quite different. But at present, I think this book might go one of two ways in the end: the complex combination of repulsion and admiration we feel for this very psychological character is either all very interesting but really not worth much because it's so unusual and irreconcilable to us, or it culminates in some as-yet-unmentioned point. I suspect the latter will be the case, personally.

Logan wrote: "Our understanding of her comes from a distorted view of Humbert's combined with our own, more objective view gleaned from passive events Humbert has recorded...."

I agree there. It's very difficult to say how reliable his character portrayals are. As Mickey has mentioned earlier, "her non-nymphetness" he may intentionally bringing her out as an unpleasant character. Also in literal sense, in the end, Humbert is a pedophile.

However in my opinion Charlotte is not the typical middle-aged woman. She is not that fond of Lolita. I mean she is not the average likable child but Charlotte’s behaviour shows she lack the motherly concern than a normal mother. She did send her to the camp to keep her from disturbing her plans with Humbert right? I feel she also plays a main role in the tragedy of Lolita.

Logan wrote: "I have been reading it not too long yet, but I find it hard to put down. Humbert's language is almost loving, passionate, endearing, ..."

Logan, I hope you'll be reading this still because i don't want to do a group reading all by myself :(

I've read Lolita for the first time when I was about 17 and my impression of the book back then was quite different to how I see it now. Back then it kind a scared me. I've been really busy previous days and couldn't join the discussion.

About the language, well does it quite purposefully, at least that's my view and I think most critics argue on that too. Remember he is a literary scholar (his college studies...) and just like he manipulates/ seduces Lolita with his "personality" he manipulates the reader with his rather poetic language. Let's face it, the subject matter of the novel is quite shocking so what makes this a great novel? It's the narrator's ability to take or at least trying to steal out sympathy. He insists us to her HIS story. His side of the story.

Does anyone understand what's the motive behind his writing while he is imprisoned and awaiting trial? Is it a confession or is he trying to justify his actions by making us to read his story?

At one point towards the end, Humbert says his motivation on writing this story is to immortalize Lolita. Not the real girl, but the way in which he "experienced" her. I think part of the subjectivity of the point of view is explained by this motivation. I don't have my book with me, but I think the subtitle has "Confessions" in it. However, I don't really think he was sincerely trying to purge his soul or that he felt remorse or regret. He'll use the word, but not mean it.

Yes and one think I found most disturbing is the way he manipulates her at a very vulnerable situation.He reveals to her that Charlotte is actually dead and she now has no choice but to accept her stepfather into her life on his terms.

I feel the protagonist has a more or less similarity to Richard Wright's Native Son in which the protagonist is also the villain.

What I found really interesting about that passage at the end of Part I was that he could acknowledge the situation for what it was. He didn't romanticize it or lose himself in his own sensations. He understood that she was defenseless and used that to his advantage, like a true sociopath. At times, he will concede a point and be honest. Other times, he won't. For instance, I was disappointed in the description of their first time together, because I thought he was being incredibly disingenuous, claiming (very clumsily and without his usual obscuring poetry of words) that she seduced him. I've often heard people calling young girls "Lolitas" when they are sexually precocious, but I've never come away from the actual book with the idea that Lolita herself fit the description. She was moony at the beginning, but you got the idea that she was mainly influenced by Hollywood and tabloids. She was a typical girl who was playing at being an adult in a way that was so transparent that any adult without motivation to do otherwise could see through it.

Mickey wrote: "I've often heard people calling young girls "Lolitas" when they are sexually precocious, but I've never come away from the actual book with the idea ..."

I agree 100% She does not fit into that description which makes me wonder, the people who had come up with the term, had actually read the book. She may be stubborn and even some what precocious but I think we can safely say she a normal twelve-year-old girl to everyone else than to pedophiles. She just happened to meet the wrong adult. Her fate is tragic, isn't it? She reminds me so much of Caddy in Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury.

What I find helpful is doing a kind of irregular, impromptu reality-check against Humbert's language. He often skips rather snakily or conveniently over important or particularly nasty parts of the plot without reflecting on the atrocity or extreme nature of what he has done. He tells the story of his journey across America with Lolita as though it were a genuine cross-country vacation, even though what he has essentially done is kidnapped a young girl after her mother has died and spent the entire time reading up on the laws that might help him get out of what he's done while blackmailing Lolita into it by telling her that it will destroy her future and make her a ward of the State if she tries to leave or get him arrested.

I currently am at the 17th section (I can't call it chapter xD)of the first part. I must say that when I started this book I had no idea what it was about. From what it's written on the back cover, I thought it was going to be an ordinary yet beautiful love story between two normal people, from the point of view of the man. I even found it hard to believe that the subject is what it is, because it is highly disturbing, for me personally. Since I'm not into little girls, I suppose.
So yeah... the plot is unhealthy. This is the only complaint lol.

I just started reading. I am on part 15, can't wait to read what you guys wrote here, but tommorow, as for today I have to get some sleep.